United States District Court, D. Columbia.
JAMIL RAHIM, Petitioner, Pro se, Washington, DC.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent: Sherri Lee Berthrong, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.
JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge.
While incarcerated for violating the conditions of his supervised release, Jamil Rahim filed this pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The potpourri of challenges he raises may be grouped into two distinct categories. First, he questions the authority of the United States Parole Commission to revoke his supervised release and denounces the procedures employed by the Commission in deeming him in violation. Second, he attacks his original sentencing, pointing to alleged defects in the trial court's colloquy and his counsel's representation. Finding some of Rahim's challenges unconvincing and lacking jurisdiction to consider the others, the Court will deny the Petition.
On March 12, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced in D.C. Superior Court Case No. 2006-CF2-3222 to 30 months' imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised release, for attempted distribution of cocaine. See Opp., Exh. 1 (BOP Sentence Monitoring Computation Data) at 9-10. On that same day, he was sentenced in D.C. Superior Court Case No. 2007-CF2-109 to a consecutive 14-month term of imprisonment, followed by a two-year term of supervised release, for carrying a pistol without a license and unlawful possession of a firearm. See id. at s11. Rahim was released from prison on April 2, 2010, to begin his aggregate five-year term of supervised release. See id. at 13-15; Opp., Exh. 2 (Warrant Application) at 1.
Nearly four years later, on March 6, 2014, the United States Parole Commission issued a warrant for Petitioner's arrest, charging him with violating the terms of his release by failing to both submit to drug testing and to report to his supervising officer as directed. See Warrant App. at 1-2. Rahim was arrested three weeks later, on March 28. See Opp., Exh. 3 (Short Intervention for Success Worksheet) at 2.
In lieu of a revocation hearing, Rahim applied to participate in the Commission's Short Intervention for Success (" SIS" ) Program. See Def. Supp. Exh. 1 (SIS Application). SIS is a pilot program aimed at " drug intervention over re-incarceration for drug-related violations of supervised release." Jenkins v. United States DOJ, No. 14-660, 2014 WL 5784084, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 2014). To qualify for the program, a releasee must admit to the alleged violations and waive certain rights. See id. In exchange, the Commission agrees to impose a sentence of no more than eight months of incarceration, in addition to a new period of supervised release within the maximum authorized term for the underlying offense. See id.
In his SIS application, accordingly, Rahim " accept[ed] responsibility for the violations of supervision alleged against [him]" and " agree[d] to waive [his] revocation hearing." SIS App. at 2. He further indicated his understanding that if the Commission approved his application, it would issue a Notice of Action setting forth a new sentence within the agreed-upon parameters. See id. at 3. As a prerequisite of participating in SIS, Petitioner waived the right to appeal any such determination. See id. He could, however, request that the Commission " amend its decision" should he believe that it (1) " erred in determining [his] release date" ; (2) " included special conditions of supervised release that are not supported by [his] background" ; or (3) " erred in applying the rules regarding forfeiture of time on parole." Id.
Following an SIS hearing, the Commission approved his application and imposed
a three-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a 57-month term of supervised release. See SIS Worksheet at 3-4. On June 23, 2014, four days prior to the expiration of his prison term, Rahim filed this Petition seeking habeas relief. He has since been released to his term of supervision and, according to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, now ...